Clipboards + Meaning

[Matt]

> At any given moment the low-level representation may look like this, but
> since the system changes so often, it would be unwise for you to demand it
> stay that way.  A pointer could require a few more bits for a few minutes,
> for example, so the system could make your object a little larger for a
> short time.
> 
> The point is if you always refer to objects by their high-level meaning,
> such as "label" and "object reference", your modules will be more useful.
> 
> > I could call this little format for 'a reference', for example, and use
> > it to build a new dynamic format, like 'picture'.
> > 
> > picture
> >   list of recerences
> > 	bitmap, pointer_to_bitmap
> > 	pallette, pointer_to_pallette
> > 
> > 'picture' is an example of a simple dynamic format. The reason it is
> > dynamic, is that you consult the data for the path to further data, thus
> > the paths through such structures may change dynamically. But there is
> > no magic to this changability or adaptability. It is all accounted for
> > on the lower abstraction levels ( or in your case, the meta-objects form
> > here to n ).
> 
> Yes.  In Tunes we allow you to work with higher abstraction levels, and
> provide incentives to avoid lower ones when possible.  One such incentive
> is a dynamic compiler to translate to lower abstraction levels for you.
> Another is the reuse and interoperability that higher abstraction levels
> allow.

  As an object changes in ways that affect those that have references to
it, are messages somehow sent to those objects, so they know to
re-evaluate themselves?

  Something like this would allow someone to write static image processing
code that becomes animatable when the input changes, or you could also use
it for batch rendering.

  Hase anything been done about units?  I've been thinking about this for
a while.  It seems like you care about three things, with respect to data:
	1) organization of units
	2) type of units (meaning range, scale (log, linear, exponential,
etc.)
	3) meaning of the units


  When all these are defined, either a suitable interface to a data
reference can be constructed, or the proposed interface can be accepted or
rejected.


> The path may also change at the very end, where byte order is defined.

	By the way, were you just talking about (I forget the formal name
of it), but objects can dynamically determine who they're derived from?
That seems like a reasonable way to implement the behavior you were
talking about.


	Matt